All Activity

I was just thinking about how a few very minor changes to the series penultimate and finale episodes would've left fans far more satisfied. What if Yara Greyjoy had been involved in the attack at kingslanding, it would've mitigated the deus ex machina element of Daenerys attacking the ships without getting hit, well to some extent. If Jaime had led Cersei into a Dead end under the red keep with Dothraki closing in realizing that they would most likely rape and kill Cersei Jaime mercy kills her by strangulation before dying of his wounds. I would remove the line where Jaime says he never cared for the innocent and also that line from Euron "I'm the man that killed Jaime Lannister" If Yara were to witness Jon killing Daenerys from a distance and arrest him after Drogon flew away with Daenerys it would make far more sense in terms of why Jon wasn't killed. If Jon is brought before the council of Westerosi lords instead of Tyrion. If at this point Bran tells Jon that the NightKing will come back that it's an unbreakable spell. Jon names Bran as his heir and abdicates the throne to him. Bran in turn could name Sansa as Wardeness of the North. Jon decides of his own volition that his place is in the Nights watch.

I don t think the problem is having diferences with the books. I think that those are kind of invetible because several reasons like what works on a book doesn t have to work on tv/cinema...
However the diferences have to make sense in the story! The characters have to remain coherent… You can t be watching something and thinking "this is so stupid or unbelivable".
And while Lotr are 3 consistent movies GoT becomes more stupid, ilogical and badly thought the further you watch… Until we reach season 8 and even though it has beautiful wallpapers and amazing music people hate it.

Yeah but Ramsay is a sadist and can’t control his brutality sometimes. Roose was greatly dismayed that he had castrated and mutilated Theon who was the last surviving son of Balon when they could have gotten the Iron Islands had they not mutilated him. Sansa’s words that she could still feel what Ramsay did inside her body imply imo that she can no longer reproduce because of the damage he did. If you read the books, if he did even 20% of what he did to Jeyne Pool to Sansa, there is no shadow of a doubt regarding this
Roose had already ordered Ramsay to get an heir from Sansa as early as possible but she never got pregnant. It’s possible if Arya never marries, this is the end of House Stark.
It’s possible Jon has a son with a FreeFolk woman and Sansa could name him as her heir to Winterfell. That sounds more likely than Arya marrying imo.

I think there can be an argument that Dany was a net loss to Jon in the battle of Winterfell against the Night King. I'm not certain its a correct argument but I think it can be a compelling argument.
Dany did hand over the Night King a dragon. Without that dragon its conceivable the fight is at the wall rather than in Winterfell but that is hypothetical.
The Dothraki charge did not gain anything
The Unsullied did not gain anything. Remember the Night King ended up re-animating not just his own dead but also all the other fallen. I think this might be a key point to. If your enemy can reanimate the dead (over and over) bringing him more potential bodies to reanimate is a bad idea. Recall that this was part of Jon's reasoning for sailing to Hard Home.
The dragons did not seem to do anything in that battle because they were too busy looking for the Night King and his dragon so let's call that at best a wash (though the Night King having a dragon to use on the wall definitely was useful to him).

I'd give it probably a 3 or 4. The scene involving Dragon was moving. The filming and a good deal of the acting were excellent as always.
The plot, on the other hand, was a shit sandwich, just cheap melodrama.

The Rat Cook was forced to eat his own children. That punishes not just him but also his children.
Many oral legends we learn of earlier in the story are eventually acted out as the story unfolds. This is by deliberate design not by casual accident, even though the purpose and mechanism connecting the legend and its realization are for now left to our imagination; many possible theories are plausible.

Pretty sure that was more a byproduct of "let's capture a zombie to show to Cersie because she will obviously join Dany to fight zombies".
I don't remember who thought that up but if your argument is Dany was a net loss to Jon you're completely wrong.

The list of Jon's successes, especially successes in leadership, is pretty short. One could argue that Tormund and the wildings are so easy to take him as a figurehead because he really lacks the capability to be more.
We complain about Dany not listening to her advisors. What of Jon? Letting the wildings through the wall, going to Hard Home, seeking Dany for help... time an time we are shown where he disregards the advise of those around him. By the way the whole going to Dany for help? What did it gain him. An ice-dragon as an enemy capable of tearing down the wall.

The Summer Islands. Far far away from the wars of Westeros, Ironborn, Mountain Tribes, Dothraki and probably not too threatened by slavers either.
But in Westeros...I don't really like warm weather too much but the North seems too far to the other end of the spectrum. The Riverlands and Vale seem best climate-wise but the Riverlands gets boned in every war and the Vale involves lots of hiking and dealing with tribesmen. So maybe White Harbour would be best?

There is some difference between Freys an KLs slaughters. Arya gathered not all the Freys, but only those she thought had a part in RW (they all cheered when she reminded them that moment). And she didn't poison women and children. Of course there are probably some innocents who died then, but not so many.
If Dany had burnt the red keep only after the bells rang, it could be compared. But she decided before that to burn alive people she knew were innocent (children had no part in Missandei death)

And by principled federal judges, though of course they're feverishly stocking the judiciary with Federalist Society test tube lawyers, like Kavanaugh.
I bet we see that Sandmann kid smirking from a federal bench in fifteen or twenty years.

Of course she had a right. the Targs forged the Iron Throne and everything that revolved around it. It was her right to bring it all back under her family. She just didn't have THE right. Jon would need to be formally recognized as a Targ, and then formally abdicate for her to have THE right. But since everything relating to this happened behind closed doors, him saying in private that he doesn't want it is as formal an abdication as we were going to get given the circumstances.
This is all irrelevant though. Once Robert took the Iron Throne by conquest from the Targs, the line was broken forever. Therefore unless you were a Baratheon, the only right anyone had to the throne after that was by Conquest or marriage into Robert's line.

I had remembered references to war galleys in Westeros while doing some research on warships and other ships for my own purposes (making a setting based on Byzantine Empire, except there is no inner sea such as Mediterranean in there). At any rate, Stannis apparently commanded from a large war galley.
But historically speaking, galleys were predominantly used by navies with Mediterranean tradition. Problems with galleys are primarily twofold: they do not handle heavy seas well, and they have very limited endurance. As such, they have to coast-hug.
Now, galleys were used on the west coast of Ireland apparently, and birlinn was used in Scotland. But these would likely have had significant differences from Mediterranean galleys, though they were apparently similar to xebecs.
Relevant: https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?3142892-16th-century-west-coast-Irish-galley-1-24-scale-scratch-built

People wanted Jon, but she would never let them make Jon king as we know she burned Varys for it. Jon didn't want to be the KitN but he had to accept it in the end, it would be the same if Dany didn't threaten people by burning them.
Yeah, it's right of conquest, because she had no right without conquering it.

I think she also said that he had left unhurt her face and what she needed to produce a baby (from memory). But if there is the slightest doubt than that makes Arya's decision even more a betrayal of her family.

He wandered around a few castles going “please!” on his knees and only convinced a few of them. Then he almost gets the whole army killed by suicidally charging and abandoning his position. He only had an army because of Tormund and because he tried (strong emphasis on the word tried) to help them out at Hardholm. He is a bungler, like a drunk floundering from disaster to disaster. He never once achieved anything without being bailed out by somebody else. A pig could have become King of the North if Tormund and Sansa had backed it.
Hes then King of the North for like a handful episodes before leaving for Dragonstone. It was never a big deal for him. He never cared about being King of the North. So it’s not a huge sacrifice to give it up.
Especially not when the Warden of the North is King in all but name. Dany becomes nothing if she gives up the Iron Throne. Dragonstone? It’s not remotely equivalent and the idea that Jon expected her to spontaneously support his claim as soon as he mentioned it is beyond arrogant. Jon kept all the power but just scratched out the title. Dany does not have that luxury. He never sacrificed anything.
I think choosing your leader based on his disinterest and apathy is a bad idea. If you don’t care for the power people invest in you then you obviously don’t respect them.
Jorah was part of a conspiracy to kill her and her child. That’s a big deal. Dany did not kill him but exiled him. Now in a normal story, her coming to forgive somebody who did that would mean “well Dany is capable of mercy”. But no, despite having met Jorah it seems Sam does not put two and two together.